tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 29, 2019 8:00pm-9:01pm PDT
>> our clerk is erica major who is delighted she will not see us for the next month. do you have any announcements. >> i guess sf gov tv has to run the title. >> okay, there is no fine for this. do they have to run the title? >> please make sure to silence all cell phones on electronic devices. replace speaker cards and any
documents to be submitted to the clerk. [reading notes] item number 1, 180777, ordinane amending the planning code to require a conditional use authorization for employee cafeterias, as defined, within office space, except for existing employee cafeterias; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302. >> we had to make some amendments i had to set for one week. anything you would like to add about this legislation? . >> clerk: just to reiterate that we were to considerable amount of time with all of the stakeholders in i feel like we've got most i think we are in good shape. >> it is an honor to be your cosponsor. does mr. sanchez, nothing from planning, is there any public comments on item number one? seeing none. public comment is closed.
if there is no objections, we will finally send this to the full board with a recommendation , without objection. madame clerk would you please read the next item? . item number 2, 190702,e amending the planning code to permit new floor area or building volume on the rooftop of a noncomplying structure that is designated as a significant building under planning code, article 11, located on assessor's parcel block no. 3707, provided that the rooftop has an existing parapet at least 17 feet in height along the primary building frontage; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and making findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code, section 302. >> this is a site-specific piece of legislation. i authored a very similar one, a few years ago for a rooftop terrace on an article article 11 designated building. this is the same for the first building, which is undergoing, the subject of a renovation to a hotel that preserves the significant features, it has
gone before the historic preservation commission which recommended i believe unanimously. on behalf of the department. >> good afternoon. planning department staff. item number two before and as an ordinance. a floor area or building volume on the rooftop of a noncomplying structure at five jik third street. it will confer office space into a tourist hotel on the first 12 floors and demolish the existing top structure. the project would maintain approximately 11,000 square feet of retail use of the basement and ground floors. the historic preservation commission presented this item on march 20. the planning commission heard this item on april 25, 2019. during both hearings the commission's recommended approval of the ordinance. this concludes my presentation. i am available for questions. >> are there any members of the public you would like to speak to item number two?
sounds like a good plan. i want to caution you about these rooftops. rooftops are not made for weight , for entertainment, and the use of putting a lot of weight on top of them. in the event that the roof is not calculated to be strong enough to carry excess weight, you are putting the lower level section of the building at risk for collapse. i think you should do engineering measurement, and pressure test on that structure before you start adding a ton of weight on top of any building that you want to perform this type of noncompliance structure design. >> thank you, mr. wright.
i will just say, for the record, that there actually rooftop structures there now, and the proposed rooftop structure is very modest, mostly consists of a canopy. this is just to allow that use on the rooftop on an article 11 building. the floor is yours ms. gomez. >> good afternoon supervisors. we've come to the planning commission, and various subcommittees, for the past several years with regard to this project. we have a long-standing relationship and a very productive collaborative relationship with the developers of this project. they have proactively come to us early, early on and signed agreements that would ensure that's whatever workers are employed at this hotel, including who served drinks, or beverages on the rooftop bar will have a fair process. it's very important to us, and for that reason we have
continued to support this project. we are asking for approval with regard to the rooftop to be presented today. if you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch. >> next speaker, please. >> connie ford from the good jobs for our program. i am here to proudly say, about 1.5 hours ago we finished our negotiations with the developer, and actually i have to sign it, i have not signed it yet. we are very happy with it. we are trying to keep all of this development that is happening in our city accountable. in serving the needs of disadvantage communication is a barrier to get these in a -- level jobs and all of this good development, particularly. we are working really hard, we are really happy and we are here to recommend that this go forward and we look forward to working with jama ventures on establishing the program that we are talking about. thank you so much.
>> congratulations. any other members of the public here on item number two. seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor haney, this is an district number six, the . >> supervisor haney: thank you. i was really excited to hear that there was such strong collaboration from a very early stage on this project. folks from local 2, ms. gomez on ms. ford from the good jobs for all coalition. i'm glad there was able to be, all of the development that is taking place, whether it's hotels, housing court, or commercial space. we want to make sure that those are available to the people in community. they are good jobs. the developers are investing in training on the front and. i'm very happy that we were able to come to an agreement on this project. i'm also excited about the
rooftop, i think rooftops are great in san francisco. rooftops have gone up very successfully on rooftops. not just putting a lot of people to work on i think it's good for tourism industry and generally for economic developments. i am excited about this project. i'm very happy and thankful to this developer and the folks in the community for coming together for an agreement. there are some minor, technical amendments. some of the existing text in the code has sons headed, we have drafted the no amendments to add that text back in. it looks like a big amendment, but it's actually just replacing existing text with the same language.
>> if i may, having just read this for the first time, and i think i was actually the author of the previous text that did sunset for a similar project that was never built. the language sons headed -- -- sun set. you change it to 5 third street. is there a reason, are you just doing that in the short title so people know where it is? >> that is right. i am not sure whether that short title change was recommended by the clerk's office or by someone in my office. yes, that is the purpose of the short title change. . >> supervisor peskin: in so far
that there is nothing in here that correlates the short title to the long title, either in the short title it should say 5 third street for assessors parcel block 3707, or in the long title it should say 5 third street. the two so far do not cross reference each other. >> fairpoint. we can make the change to the long title to reflect the address. >> thank you. sorry for being such a nit picker. this is not substantial. all right, we have had public comment. supervisor haney, would you like to make a motion to adopt the amendments described? . >> supervisor haney: forward as amended. . >> supervisor peskin: we will take the amendments and send the item with a recommendation to the full board of supervisors without objection. madame clerk could you read the next item. .
item number 3, 190594,e amending the planning code to revise the zoning control tables of the chinatown mixed use districts to make them consistent with those in articles 2 and 7, to apply the use definitions in section 102, to set an abandonment period for use size maximums, and to allow general entertainment and nighttime entertainment uses with conditional use authorization; affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act; making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101.1; and adopting findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under >> supervisor peskin: colleagues , this is part of aaron's stars favorite job, and life mission to reorganize the code and they have now gotten to article eight , in the chinatown mixed-use districts. this is similar to a number of other pieces of legislation that mr. starr has brought, and the commission has recommended in this case. i believe it was unanimous recommendation on may 9 of this year. i do have one very minor addition, which i believe staff is aware of, and i will talk to
you about in a minute. but first, i would like to give mr. starr the opportunity to regale us with his life's work. >> thank you, supervisor, i like to think of it as my elbows. aaron starr, manager of legislative affairs, this is part three of the code reorganization project. it brings consistency to the code by consolidating all use the definitions in the code and standardizing these control table formats. this phase focuses on chinatown. the first phase focused on article two which include our residential pdr and downtown zoning districts. the second one focused on zoning seven. the next phase and final phase will reformat the remainder of article eight. supervisor haney, i will be coming after you next. which includes our easter neighborhoods district. i would just like to note that the new zoning district that was created by central selma uses a centralized definition of format.
the commission heard this item on may 9 and recommended two of -- approve. we do have one proposed amendment today. . >> supervisor peskin: which was discussed by the commission and does not require re- referral? >> it narrows what the commission approve so it does not need a throwback. . >> supervisor peskin: before we open it up for public comments, i want to explain to my colleagues, and the public, what that small amendment does on page three, which is to accept from the maximum use size abandonment provision, a change of use for legacy business or institutional use, or legacy business or institutional use after -- after the abandonment timeframe. that is set forth on page three. with that, why don't we open this up to public comment.
first speaker, please. >> this is a good way for me to get my point across to you. i want all of you to pay close attention to this. you set rules and regulations that gives preferential treatment to yourselves, and people in the same income brackets as yourselves. you have a redevelopment rule that says 15% of all brand-new housing, is supposed to be for low income, very low income, and moderate households. you have the audacity to talk about the homeless issue, act like you want to help. by the same response, peskin, even you when you point out your proposal, pertaining to the congestion in san francisco, you include the homeless in your conversation to try to make it act like your proposal is going
to help the homeless situation. those two apartment buildings in your broadway district, okay, you are not including the most vulnerable people that is homeless out in the street. you said the lowest income at 30% of the ami scale. that means everybody's income that is below 30%, is not included in the housing opportunity. but, you still want to administer rules and regulations that you want to enforce, and follow, to benefit people that is in the same damn income bracket as yourselves, and personal god damn friends to yourselves. you're a bigot. you are. all three of you. you sit up there and act like you are concerned, but you are not. if another center is not a solution to the homeless problem, why are you doing it? a $400 million a year is not a solution to the homeless problem, why are you spending that per year? it is called professional stupidity, and you don't give a damn. that is why you have so many god
damn homeless people out in the streets. then you give multibillion-dollar tax companies multibillion-dollar tax breaks and talk about you giving them a break. >> with regard to item number 3, welcome. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is roy chan, chinatown community developer first off i want to acknowledge aaron starr and a planning staff for working closely with our organization and with supervisor peskin's staff, this past year, on this project to ensure consistency with the originally intended projections of the chinatown zoning adopted in 1987. this zoning as you know, has been vital in preserving chinatown neighborhood character by keeping high-rise developments from displacing residents, small businesses and shadowing our parks. this process has been really important and thorough.
i want to recap the rationale for the amendments that we requested in the chinatown visitor free. the first change responds to feedback we have been hearing from chinatown business entrepreneurs by the code's restriction that requires entertainment used be tied to an existing restaurant. the proposed change in this ordinance would remove this requirement and instead make entertainment use conditional. with that said, to continue ensure that large nightclubs and other large-scale uses, when there is a change of use in a nonconforming structure. the only exception we believe should be allowable, is the proposed use of the institutional, or legacy business status. with that, thank you for your time and your support to move this to the next process.
>> thank you for working with mr. starr, and the community and for those suggestions that you made to the commission, and thank you mr. starr and the commission for adopting them. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item? public comment is closed. i would like to move the amendment. we will take that without objection and send the item, as amended and come into the board with recommendation without objection. mr. starr, you will not be hearing from any of us for the next month. supervisor safai you might hear from. madame clerk can you read the fourth and final item. . item number 4, 190477,g to receive a report from the san francisco public utilities commission on options for improving electric service through acquisition, construction, or completion of public utilities, pursuant to resolution no. 174-19, adopted april 9, 2019, and in accordance with charter, section 16.101; and requesting the san francisco public utilities commission to report. >> supervisor peskin: thank you.
i would like to first acknowledge the great work of the san francisco puc. i always break for station identification and say not the california public utilities commission, very different organization that actually is trying to do the right thing for the people of the city and county of san francisco. as we all know, this has been the subject of many hearings, many resolutions, and a lot of work and the expenditure of a bunch of money to get this project on its way. it is a long-held desire that was in the old days held by some, not by all. in recent times is now, i think held by every one of the 11 members of this body and the chief executive officer, our mayor, london breed. we are all marching in the same direction although there may be
some other parties that are not marching along with us. i would like to, first of all, acknowledge and think the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission. the assistant agm, ms. barbara hale from our power enterprise for your work. i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge teresa mueller from the city attorney's office. there are many other people i could acknowledge including my colleague, hilary ronan who wanted to be with us this afternoon. unfortunately got stuck somewhere outside of san francisco. with that, why do we turn it over to ms. hale to regale us with a good, the bad, and the ugly and the aspirational vision that we all share. hold on one second. supervisor haney? . >> supervisor haney: i have a statement that supervisor ronen
asked me to read. she had to be in los angeles to be at the swearing in of her friend, lily garcia, and she asked me to share these brief remarks. these are her words. "i am relieved we are here today to take the next step to ensure we have a, affordable and energy system in san francisco. making it clear that pg&e is a wreck. the chronicle reported that the preparation itself and some of its employees could be soon facing manslaughter, or murder charges for last year's fires are yet while the court rejected a request for ratepayers to have any voice in pg&e's vagrancy negotiations, but continue to battle for control between pg&e's stockholders on potential hedge fund adventures, and surely the customers come last. what we are seeing is the inevitable outcome of having an investor owned utility that profits above reliability, and safety above its customers and its employees. certainly above our urgent need to respond now to the climate
change. we can't keep going down this failed path. lucky for us, we already have a functioning public utility. the san francisco public utilities commission, which has been providing safe, reliable energy for our city facilities for more than 100 years, as well as delivering fresh and clear drinking water throughout the city. san francisco public utilities commission has had a high bar for a partnerships and a real commitment to community education, arts, environmental justice and workforce about me. taking full ownership of our power system, opens exciting opportunities for san francisco to invest in green jobs and infrastructure, to make our grid smaller and saved her and and make environmentally sound decisions about energy sources. it is time, beyond time really, to break the tie to pg&e and create a green, renewable, publicly owned system ". i agree with what chair peskin's head.
i'm excited about this hearing and appreciate the work that has i believe there is not just a broad majority that shares the perspective that chair peskin just articulated. a full consensus on this approach. i appreciate the work, and i'm looking forward to doing whatever we can to support it. >> ms. hale, the floor is yours. >> thank you chairman, thank you supervisors for the opportunity to present our preliminary report today. i am going to briefly -- excuse me, having a little trouble here. i'm going to briefly review the history of city power services and describe the context in which this report has called for and prepared. then i will send a little more -- spend a little more time reviewing the options that the and the recommended next steps. . >> supervisor peskin: very similar to our june presentation, is that true?
nevermind, go ahead. don't listen to me. >> the puc is a party of the city and county of san francisco. we service programs as well as water and wastewater services that we referred to earlier. those two retail electric service programs are public power utility, hetch hetchy power. we have been serving city functions like the general hospital, police and fire stations, public schools, and new developments like the shipyard at hunters point. mission rock and treasures i went. our second retail electric service program is the clean power sf program. providing electrical supply to businesses and residents. historically, the city has paid pg&e for distribution services for both of those programs. together that is about $300 million per year in distribution fees, paid by san franciscans to pg&e.
that is $300 million per year for use of pg&e's distribution wires and facilities. over time, san francisco has been reducing its reliance on pg&e, increasing our energy independence. that effort began in 1918 when we first started gathering electricity of our own, that is the carbon free electricity reproduced on the hetch hetchy power system. and the associated transmission services. the system has expanded over time, since 1997, san francisco has assumed more responsibility for operating distribution services. first at stretch around boyne islands, then at the shipyard at hunters point and then the sales force transit center. as we build transmission and distribution to serve the improved southeast weight -- wastewater treatment facilities, new treatments along the southern waterfront. in 2016, we further reduce our
reliance on pg&e, by launching our cleanpowersf to serve more clean energy to residents and businesses. as a result of these activities, san francisco is now the dominant supplier of electricity in san francisco. pg&e is the dominant provider of grid services, the delivery of that supply. san francisco is very dependent on pg&e for delivery. in that dependence, that reliance we encounter difficulties. these difficulties are reported to the board quarterly. in june of 2018, a hearing to the public safety and neighborhood services committee made clear the pg&e rule of obstructing distribution services. in that context that this report was requested. increasing costs to city projects has resulted from these delays. city projects like senior affordable housing, swimming pool renovations, health and
community centers and electrical vehicle charging installations. >> and bus driver toilets? >> that is correct. meanwhile pg&e faces ongoing reliability, safety and financial challenges. alarming safety violations. they filed for bankruptcy protection. mayor breed in the of supervisors requested this report ask in the puc to explore electric service options. city staff prepared this report, it is based on publicly available information. it is preliminary. the options are discussed in the preliminary report on the report is available on our website. the report describes three options, limited independence where we continue to pay pg&e for distribution service. more independence through targeted, strategic investment distribution that the city would own and operate and pay pg&e to
provide service where we do not own and operate systems ourselves. and then the third option, full independence. we would pay pg&e a fair market value for their facilities, become the owner and operator of the system that serves san francisco. here is a snapshot of the options to give you a sense of the size, revenue, and capital expenditure. the size ranges between 3500-400,000 by accounts sir. 150 megawatts and by thousand megawatts. the distribution revenue ranges from 100 million per year that we would collect up to 700 million per year. the capital outlay ranges from 25 million annually to a few billion dollars initial investment in the system. now, let's take a look at a
little deeper dive on each of these options. limited independence. under this option, we would keep fighting the good fight, taking our concerns to pg&e's regulators. as you are aware, we currently have two open formal complaints at the federal energy regulatory commission. under this scenario, pg&e continues to impose requirements that negatively impact the city's ability to serve our customers. this a option has grown increasingly, and unnecessarily expensive. our quarterly report, which was provided to the board on may 17 shows 61 projects are currently delayed. add an extra cost, since fall of 2018, of $9.5 million to the city. targeted investment for more
independence, has the city shifting towards a more aggressive investment, building its own electric distributions systems. we are making progress on this front, reducing costs, the prospect for grid modernization under this scenario is quite good. hardships still remain where the city has not made investments. and then the third option is acquiring pg any assets for full independence. under this option we would be expanding the city's existing public electric utility, hetch hetchy power. making investments, in the system, through revenue bond financing. our initial staff estimates puts the acquisition cost foz on the range of a few billion dollars. in a few billion places it in
the realm of other capital investments undertaking since the city has pursued as you see a rate here. the water system and sewer system improvements, the expansion of redevelopment are on the same, you know, monetary scale. it is doable for the city. having said that though, we do recognize that this is a complex undertaking and it is not without risks and challenges. on this slide i am presenting a comparison on how public funds are used under these options. where decision-making and grid control lies. who oversees the programs, sets the rates and ensures operational accountability? the effectiveness of achieving san francisco's climate goals and how the option described, and the clean power sf program fit. as you see here, full independence is the option that perform the best.
public funds would be used for public ownership and investment in san francisco grid. san francisco would control the grid and make associated decisions. voters, the board, the mayor, our commission would ensure accountability and driving achievement of our climate goals and we would be integrating the clean power sf program fully. risks and challenges do exist under this scenario, as i mentioned. they would need to be assessed. we would need to take a look at the condition of pg&e's -- it is largely unknown. we need to evaluate the potential impacts on pg&e's remaining customers. the impacts on cost and rates for san francisco's residents and businesses into the future. take a look at what our workforce expansion needs to be. integration of pg&e's operational systems and
technologies. and the possible disproportionate impacts to communities and residents of the city. preliminary work on these issues show likely long-term benefits for san francisco through full independence, through acquisition of pg&e's assets. the long-term benefits are durable, long-term cost savings to customers. timely and cost-efficient modernization of the grid. by that, i mean, things like solar, on the rooftops, solar plus storage for resiliency, the sharing of solar generation across customers. easy charging her bikes, cars, and scooters. achieving longer-term climate goals the city has been striving toward. while ensuring safe, reliable energy, in a workforce that is
well-equipped to take on these issues. with the attention as well to equity. really, a community directed in a community accountable approach to providing electric services. that concludes the review of the options. which brings us next to next steps. the report concludes that the study work should focus on acquisition of pg&e's assets, serving san francisco. we need to continue our work to assess which assets to purchase and the current conditions and value of those assets. assess the public utility commission operational readiness for these expanded responsibilities as well as the city's overall organization capacity. assess the equity implications, understand the system engineering impacts and
understand the impacts on remaining pg&e customers and develop a transition plan. the timeline for this work is accelerated and influenced by factors outside of the city's control. most notably the fact that pg&e filed for bankruptcy. that effort really accelerates the timeframe for the work that we have underway. one known data.is the fact that pg&e has until september 29 to form a plan for reorganization. we are kind of anchoring on that date, as we pursue our study work. so that we are positioning the city to be ready to engage on that timeline. any successful efforts could include a few year transition. during that time we would need to complete our regulatory, any necessary regulatory approvals with the state and the feds.
we would need to establish the new points of interconnection between pg&e and city-owned systems and conduct the work to ensure that the puc is organized to succeed with our recruitment and workforce and integration efforts being key. our next steps are centered on helping san francisco answer this big question. can san francisco purchase the assets, reorganize around a larger enterprise, and continue to provide affordable, reliable power service consistent with our values on clean power content and equity, while meeting our financial requirements? with that, i would be happy to take any questions you may have. i think you for your attention. >> thank you, you have managed to take a remarkably complicated, complex piece of public policy and financial policy and put it into something
that is very easily understood. i really like the capital spending comparison slide. which really puts it in perspective, particularly as a puc. when you look at that yellow bar of what public power, acquisition expansion looks like compared to projects that the puc has successfully undertaken and successfully financed and continues in the case of the sewer system improvement project to currently the undertaking. these are massive projects that are larger than the gmb of some countries. i don't have any questions other than what can we do to help you beyond having given you the original e ref dollars so you can embark on this mission. our job is to help you do your job. whatever we can do to facilitate
that, i am happy to do as long as we can afford it. >> thank you. . >> supervisor peskin: supervisor haney. . >> supervisor haney: thank you for this. it sounds like the direction we should be going in. a couple of questions in terms of some of the things we might be looking at as we are developing a transition plan. obviously we have a governing structure right now that exists, for the situation we are in. this would be a different situation. are you also going to be looking at some of the opportunities for governance and other municipalities how they do this? have you given any initial consideration to that? >> we have been looking at how other cities that operate fully integrated electric utilities conduct their governance.
ready examples like la wp, city that operates its own water and power department. much like us, but they own their distribution service serving their customers. organizations like the sacramento municipal utility district, santa clara owns its own distribution and power supply serving its city. these are the three larger municipal utilities operating in the state of california. were san francisco to pursue this acquisition, we would become the third-largest in the state. so governance, and how to be most effective is certainly on the list of activities that we are investigating further i will bring more information back to the board on. .
>> supervisor haney: thank you. one thing i know you have worked on a lot, and supervisor ronen wanted to make sure i brought up this issue. some of the current challenges around connecting public projects with city generated electricity and working with pg&e to do that, have there been improvements in that, and what sort of a current status of that. how do some of the short needs around that relate to this longer-term solution. >> unfortunately we have not seen improvement in our interactions with pg&e on getting city projects connected to to their distribution system that they own. our last report to the board on this was in made. at that time we had 61 projects, city projects that were delayed negatively impacted by pg&e on
grade connection with increased cost and delays. we tabulated $9.5 million in additional costs to the city, since we started collecting the data in the fall of 2018. that is 6.3 million an additional costs to the actual projects themselves that the city is trying to implement and $3.6 million in lost revenue from pg&e not allowing us to provide the service. unfortunately, we are seeing some stepping up of difficulty with pg&e. they sent us a letter saying they were just going to flat out cancel a number of requests we have two interconnect projects. unfortunately, we are not seeing improvements. . >> supervisor peskin: are those the main 2 letters? >> i think that is right.
may 17 is when we sent the report to you. no, it would not have been a may letter, i think it was a june letter from pg&e that we receive. i would be happy to get you copies of that letter. . >> supervisor haney: there is a may 13 letter in the file, and a july 26 letter. >> we have had quite a bit of meetings and efforts to try to work things out with pg&e that have had some limited success. we had i think, six projects that were initially allowed to move forward with pg&e. since those efforts, it has really come to a grinding halt. we are just seeing more and more of these projects delayed critically. . >> supervisor haney: as part of this analysis, would we be looking at how to address that issue either in the short-term,
or or in a transition timeframe? how we might accelerate the process, in certain areas, where we have immediate need? >> yeah, so, as i say, we are continuing to work things out with pg&e. if we were to move forward with an acquisition and pg&e were agreeable to that, or through the bankruptcy proceeding found that that was a part of the plan to emerge from bank of there would be an improved approach to transition away from pg&e distribution ownership, to city distribution ownership that would make the connection of the projects, in the meantime, more businesslike and efficient. . >> supervisor haney: got it. obviously the focus of a lot of this has been -- is on the transmission and distribution of electricity.
how does natural gas play into this? as we are thinking about the transition, or potential transition, what is the role of natural gas reduction? >> i think the city has been very successful in decarbonization the service of electricity. the areas that the city's climate focus to cetera now, are really moving towards transportation and the building stock. that is where we see gasoline, diesel and natural gas being consumed. we will see less and less reliance on natural gas, more and more reliance on electricity for powering building functions, and out electricity service that we provide over 50% renewable
and greenhouse gas free. we are very compatible with the city's objectives there. . >> clerk: for thank you. >> supervisor safai, any questions or comments? . >> supervisor safai: that last one was important to us. i think we delayed the project almost over 1.5 years. the cost the project almost an additional million dollars, and people do not understand. when you try to explain to them we are having an argument about transformers, equipment and they are saying, we are just reopening a pool. they don't understand. a lot of these things are extremely frustrating to users and neighborhood groups. we have done everything we can to work with you, and your team,
and pg&e. it got so crazy to the point you all weren't a vendor for a particular piece of vendor of theirs, so we had to loan, and then get it back, and then when the piece of equipment came. i mean, it was just absurd. absolutely absurd. if we have the ability -- i know supervisor peskin, and i, we put forward -- we never would have a vision we would be in the position to use the ability to sell bonds to acquire infrastructure, on the distribution grid. everything that we can do to have our own control over the system i think is something that we would 100% b in favor of. i think i can speak for all of my colleagues here, we are all in favor of that. the more we can be brief, the more you can give us information on. if there's anything we can do, we are happy to participate in that process.
we appreciate the thoughtful and well laid out report. >> thank you. . >> supervisor peskin: tomorrow in closed session we get to hear about the over 20 pieces of outstanding litigation and actions where pacific gas and electric is the adverse party to the city. something to look forward to tomorrow. all right, why don't we open this up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards. if you will line up to my left, you're right,. if you will line up after the speakers i have called. >> i will be using the overhead.
eileen bogan, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods here at the july 22 meeting of the capital planning committee, there was a presentation of the 2019 building code update. the presentation was made by the department of the environment. the presentation stated that the cities current admissions that come from private sector natural gas are 35%. one of the proposals will be to encourage all electric, new construction. the issue of reliability was brought up by a committee member similar issues were brought up at the july 25 meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee on overhead wiring. i believe under grounding should be considered with this hearing, and would propose the following priorities. areas adjacent to police and fire stations to protect emergency response. areas adjacent to hospitals for the same reason. areas adjacent to muni routes to
protect transit services. areas adjacent to schools to protect students. areas adjacent to commercial corridors to increase their competitiveness with online retail. finally, at the public safety committee hearing, pg&e stated that in terms of under grounding , san francisco is fortunate, unlike minnesota we do not have a a gophers who could impact underground wires. the west side does have gophers, lots of them. a fact that pg&e seems unaware of. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> this is thrilling actually. i know there are hundreds of people out there that didn't probably know about this stage of the program. you could feel them. we are so thankful for the supervisors putting this forward , and for the wonderful report that you gave that was so
clear and concise. also that we would have -- be really jumping ahead because of their bankruptcy, to deal with the climate crisis is fantastic. also no more secrecy so the people actually know what is going on with our system. it is so important. as many people now, it has been one -- i want to mention labor. it is so important that the people that work for pg&e know that they will be transferred with pension and wages equal, or better than, to what they have now. that we would finally get rid of a corporation that is just for profit, felon, and has broken the agreement for over 100 years. as a part of extinction rebellion, we are extremely excited about this move forward that we can really have a public system that is for clean power. no more nuclear, all of those
things are gone. thank you, thank you, thank you. it's wonderful to appreciate what our representatives are doing in this way. . >> supervisor peskin: thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. eric brooks with californians for energy choice, san francisco green parties and the local grassroots organization. it would clearly be better for this city if we had public power. some folks might remember back in the day, the san francisco guardian did a study that showed we would get $200 million more per year, by not throwing money at pg&e. with that said, we've got to be mindful that we are in a climate crisis. getting a bunch of extra money every year does not necessarily solve that. los angeles, the biggest public utility is dismal on renewable energy. sacramento, one of the best leaders on renewable energy is
not doing as well as a community choice programs. what that means is that we must have mandates. whatever we passed here or at the ballot, that we have 100% local renewable energy master plan baked into that thing, like the document i sent to you, that showed you sydney, australia's master plan. that is number if it doesn't have that, climate activists will not support that, especially community activists. all we need is a democratic electric -- elected board. most consumer advocate are going to be deeply concerned about another agency that is ran by five people appointed by the mayor. whether the mayor is good or bad is not the issue. we need democratically elected representation. that means we need to set up municipally elected board for this thing. lastly, we won't even get a chance at this unless we amend ab 1054, and ab 11 that just
passed in san francisco. it makes it much more difficult for us to get public power. those of us that are advocating need your help to push for those amendments and in sacramento, next month or next year. >> to end, with regard to ab 1054, this board is on the record and very clear, i think we indicated that we would oppose it if it was not amended, and indeed we opposed it. next speaker, please. >> i am robin david, i am a retiree, i am retired from ibew 1245. i was also very active in the 2,001 campaign for public power. i am extremely designed -- delighted and excited that the seeds we planted in 2,001 are beginning to bear fruit.
it is important to note, that not only this report, to my knowledge is secondhand, but as i understand it, not only does it take note of the fact that public power is concerned with the environment, but it's also concerned with rates that are at least as good as better, and better than pg&e. i would like to specifically address two issues. the first issue is that adopting this reports, and going through the whole process, is not the end, but the beginning of a very long process. when sacramento voted to institute smiled, pg&e dragged on the battle for 22 years if memory serves correctly before smud was established. we have to be aware that we are in for an expensive battle, and be proud paired politically --
-- prepared politically and financially for a period the second issue, the report takes up the transition of the pg&e labor force into the city workforce. in 2001, the labor moved in on the whole, was very much behind public power. the city union, the biggest local, and lead was chomping at the bit and salivating over the pg&e workforce. . >> supervisor peskin: wait one second. number one, it's good to see you after all of these years. your time has expired, i would like to ask you a question about pg&e, the city, and the workforce? go ahead. >> okay. it's a very important, despite
whatever connection supervisors have to the city union that the pg&e workforce remain a 1245 bargaining unit. a unit that has use to working together, without a lot of divisions, craft, trade and department. whatever divisions come up are settled within the union, rather than dragging city officials, and managers into it. i think also, from a political point of view -- the city unions have nothing necessarily to gain out of this. 1245 has significant to lose. if they face losing it they become a formidable enemy, as they have been in every effort for public power since 2,001. i think it is very important
that not only did the transition be smooth and generalized way, but that it remains a 1245 bargaining unit. . >> supervisor peskin: thank you for those comments. ms. hale, i suggest you might talk to mr. david. good to see you again. next speaker, please. >> hello supervisors, a community organizer with the sierra club. the sierra club supports the takeover of pg&e infrastructure, only if the city would commit to dramatically increasing the local build up pace since the new renewable energy, and efficiency upgrades. we urge that san francisco makes the creation of new renewable energy resources part of the takeover proposal. thank you for the opportunity to comment. . >> supervisor peskin: thank you, next speaker, please. >> thank you.
senior policy analyst for 350 bay area. it is surreal to be having this conversation having voted on public power every chance i have had since 1999. the whole city family is isn't working together towards this, and having reviewed the preliminary report, have thank you very much for the analysis. the quality of pg&e's infrastructure, as ms. hale mentioned, looking at a deeper analysis on the quality of the infrastructure. i know none of us want to spend billions of dollars on a lemon, or infrastructure that will immediately require huge capital investments on top of the bio. to that point because, it was mentioned that the buyout would cost a few billion dollars. i just want to highlight, since 2013, advocates for community choice on renewable energy have been pushing for a citywide
local build outs of, efficiency and demand response that was originally estimated at $100 million per year for ten years. which adds up to $1 billion area that got laughed out of the room, every single time it was mentioned. that would have resulted in 50% local renewable energy, and 50% nonrenewable local energy for $1 billion. estimated. the idea that we would be buying potentially faulty, and garbage infrastructure for a few billion dollars while i am not opposed to that, i think we need to put into perspective, what we would consider spending money on what is considered a laughable idea. lastly, we really do need some kind of public oversight, besides a an to appoint a board if to have a system like this. that was mentioned before. i want to back up supervisor haney that we want to see governance change.
. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, next speaker, please. >> first of all, you're not going to get first dibs on becoming an owner of equipment of pg&e. pg&e owns their insurance companies multi- quadruple billions of dollars, is that clear? >> that is why they might want our money? >> no, the persons in the insurance companies get first dibs at the property. the best way to take care of this problem, y'all ready -- you all are ready on the right track, you have to build your own system to distribute your own electricity to the city and county of san francisco. get rid of pg&e altogether. how many more examples do you need to demonstrate that pg&e is not dealing in good faith, and by the same response never had intentions of